154 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 18323272)
1. Value of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography-guided brushings in preoperative assessment of pancreaticobiliary strictures: what's new?
Athanassiadou P; Grapsa D
Acta Cytol; 2008; 52(1):24-34. PubMed ID: 18323272
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Comparison of flow cytometry for DNA content and brush cytology for detection of malignancy in pancreaticobiliary strictures.
Ryan ME; Baldauf MC
Gastrointest Endosc; 1994; 40(2 Pt 1):133-9. PubMed ID: 8013809
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. In situ hybridization for telomerase RNA in routine cytologic brushings for the diagnosis of pancreaticobiliary malignancies.
Morales CP; Burdick JS; Saboorian MH; Wright WE; Shay JW
Gastrointest Endosc; 1998 Oct; 48(4):402-5. PubMed ID: 9786114
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Brush cytology of ductal strictures during ERCP.
Macken E; Drijkoningen M; Van Aken E; Van Steenbergen W
Acta Gastroenterol Belg; 2000; 63(3):254-9. PubMed ID: 11189981
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. [Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography-guided brush cytology diagnosis of pancreatobiliary tumors].
Gao L; Man XH; Cai YB; Zheng JM; Zhu MH
Zhonghua Bing Li Xue Za Zhi; 2009 Mar; 38(3):189-93. PubMed ID: 19575856
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Routine brush cytology and fluorescence in situ hybridization for assessment of pancreatobiliary strictures.
Smoczynski M; Jablonska A; Matyskiel A; Lakomy J; Dubowik M; Marek I; Biernat W; Limon J
Gastrointest Endosc; 2012 Jan; 75(1):65-73. PubMed ID: 22078103
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. A prospective randomised study of dense Infinity cytological brush versus regularly used brush in pancreaticobiliary malignancy.
Kylänpää L; Boyd S; Ristimäki A; Lindström O; Udd M; Halttunen J
Scand J Gastroenterol; 2016; 51(5):590-3. PubMed ID: 26642244
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Brush cytology during ERCP for the diagnosis of biliary and pancreatic malignancies.
Ferrari Júnior AP; Lichtenstein DR; Slivka A; Chang C; Carr-Locke DL
Gastrointest Endosc; 1994; 40(2 Pt 1):140-5. PubMed ID: 8013810
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Reporting the presence of significant epithelial atypia in pancreaticobiliary brush cytology specimens lacking evidence of obvious carcinoma: impact on performance measures.
Logroño R; Wong JY
Acta Cytol; 2004; 48(5):613-21. PubMed ID: 15471252
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Image cytometry as a discriminatory tool for cytologic specimens obtained by endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography.
Sears RJ; Duckworth CW; Decaestecker C; Bourgeois N; Ledent T; Deviere J; Salmon I; Kiss R; Yeaton P
Cancer; 1998 Apr; 84(2):119-26. PubMed ID: 9570216
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. DNA methylation alterations in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography brush samples of patients with suspected pancreaticobiliary disease.
Parsi MA; Li A; Li CP; Goggins M
Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol; 2008 Nov; 6(11):1270-8. PubMed ID: 18995218
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Accuracy and complication rate of brush cytology from bile duct versus pancreatic duct.
Vandervoort J; Soetikno RM; Montes H; Lichtenstein DR; Van Dam J; Ruymann FW; Cibas ES; Carr-Locke DL
Gastrointest Endosc; 1999 Mar; 49(3 Pt 1):322-7. PubMed ID: 10049415
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, intraductal ultrasonography, and magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography in bile duct strictures: a prospective comparison of imaging diagnostics with histopathological correlation.
Domagk D; Wessling J; Reimer P; Hertel L; Poremba C; Senninger N; Heinecke A; Domschke W; Menzel J
Am J Gastroenterol; 2004 Sep; 99(9):1684-9. PubMed ID: 15330902
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Endoscopic retrograde wire-guided cytology of malignant biliary strictures using a novel scraping brush.
Parasher VK; Huibregtse K
Gastrointest Endosc; 1998 Sep; 48(3):288-90. PubMed ID: 9744607
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Clinical utility of stent cytology for the diagnosis of pancreaticobiliary neoplasms.
Devereaux BM; Fogel EL; Bucksot L; Shelly LA; Lehman GA; Sherman S
Am J Gastroenterol; 2003 May; 98(5):1028-31. PubMed ID: 12809824
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Analysis of false-negative diagnoses on endoscopic brush cytology of biliary and pancreatic duct strictures: the experience at 2 university hospitals.
Logrono R; Kurtycz DF; Molina CP; Trivedi VA; Wong JY; Block KP
Arch Pathol Lab Med; 2000 Mar; 124(3):387-92. PubMed ID: 10705391
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Classification of probe-based confocal laser endomicroscopy findings in pancreaticobiliary strictures.
Meining A; Shah RJ; Slivka A; Pleskow D; Chuttani R; Stevens PD; Becker V; Chen YK
Endoscopy; 2012 Mar; 44(3):251-7. PubMed ID: 22261749
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. A comparison of routine cytology and fluorescence in situ hybridization for the detection of malignant bile duct strictures.
Kipp BR; Stadheim LM; Halling SA; Pochron NL; Harmsen S; Nagorney DM; Sebo TJ; Therneau TM; Gores GJ; de Groen PC; Baron TH; Levy MJ; Halling KC; Roberts LR
Am J Gastroenterol; 2004 Sep; 99(9):1675-81. PubMed ID: 15330900
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Next-Generation Sequencing and Fluorescence in Situ Hybridization Have Comparable Performance Characteristics in the Analysis of Pancreaticobiliary Brushings for Malignancy.
Dudley JC; Zheng Z; McDonald T; Le LP; Dias-Santagata D; Borger D; Batten J; Vernovsky K; Sweeney B; Arpin RN; Brugge WR; Forcione DG; Pitman MB; Iafrate AJ
J Mol Diagn; 2016 Jan; 18(1):124-30. PubMed ID: 26596524
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Benign, dysplastic, or malignant--making sense of endoscopic bile duct brush cytology: results in 149 consecutive patients.
Lee JG; Leung JW; Baillie J; Layfield LJ; Cotton PB
Am J Gastroenterol; 1995 May; 90(5):722-6. PubMed ID: 7733076
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
